It looks nice on PC but runs like ass on the iPad.Takes over a second to register a click.The transitions stutter.In landscape mode the "sections" area has a non-native scroll bar which is too narrow and is useless.The sections area in general are too narrow to press.The "shortcuts" button doesn't handle landscape mode well.

Nice on the PC. Native iPad app is so much better.

Edit. Keeps asking to increase storage as a popup as you use it, which is annoying.

It looks nice on PC but runs like ass on the iPad.Takes over a second to register a click.The transitions stutter.In landscape mode the "sections" area has a non-native scroll bar which is too narrow and is useless.The sections area in general are too narrow to press.The "shortcuts" button doesn't handle landscape mode well.

Nice on the PC. Native iPad app is so much better.

Edit. Keeps asking to increase storage as a popup as you use it, which is annoying.

performance is definitely an issue, but the point of the OP is that you should be able to custom craft an HTML5 site for iOS devices, and have that run under the mobile site sub header. Although, judging by the awful performance of that site on iOS devices, that simply might not be possible.

performance is definitely an issue, but the point of the OP is that you should be able to custom craft an HTML5 site for iOS devices, and have that run under the mobile site sub header. Although, judging by the awful performance of that site on iOS devices, that simply might not be possible.

No-one says that you absolutely cannot do it, but no-one has provided a compelling reason to either.

... should be able to custom craft an HTML5 site for iOS devices, and have that run under the mobile site sub header.

You certainly can, doesn't mean you should. Web apps will alway perform less, have less access to the hardware, and consume more resources than native apps. To make them look and feel like native apps will will cost more in either man power and or system resources. Now the op may prefer a web app to stay in the browser, but in general most people prefer native apps because they perform better and have a native look and feel.

... should be able to custom craft an HTML5 site for iOS devices, and have that run under the mobile site sub header.

You certainly can, doesn't mean you should. Web apps will alway perform less, have less access to the hardware, and consume more resources than native apps. To make them look and feel like native apps will will cost more in either man power and or system resources. Now the op may prefer a web app to stay in the browser, but in general most people prefer native apps because they perform better and have a native look and feel.

yes, but the web is an interconnected network. That's a big problem for standalone apps, since they make jumping from place to place difficult.

I'm actually willing to bet that in some future version of mobile safari they have an option to go directly to a local app from a web address.

I'm actually willing to bet that in some future version of mobile safari they have an option to go directly to a local app from a web address.

In effect they do, you can have custom URL handlers (albeit they require a custom protocol prefix IIRC so may not play nice with others)

The main issue is jumping from an app into a web link if the app doesn't host nicely (things like share your cookie state, likely a security concern) but that's a price you pay (and I'm willing to pay) since fast app switching came in.

Blacken is there anything you actually like? For my short time here I've only ever seen you respond to something with venom and hatred.

To be fair, on this one he's absolutely right. The evil triad of HTML/CSS/JS are perverse beyond reason, and that's before you get into the various HTTP hacks and cross-browser differences. Sure HTML/CSS might be barely acceptable for more or less static documents, and a small bit of JS to make those slightly interactive may have been ok, but the millions if not billions of hours which have been flushed down the toilet in trying to get workable dynamic applications built on web technologies should be the shame of the IT industry.

And this is pretty much the answer to the OP's question - the reason you do mobile apps rather than HTML is because lacking the massive firepower of a modern PC, the 'leaning tower of hacks' which is needed to beat HTML/CSS/JS into submission as an application platform just doesn't deliver a usable experience. Just look at the amount of CSS abuse it takes to get anything like the basic layout functionality built into pretty much any GUI API, then consider the relative CPU overhead. And god help you if you want to nest a few of these magic recipes into a single page, vs more or less trouble-free nesting in a real GUI API.

The fact that applets, ugly as they were (and still are, due to lack of development), did the basics better about 15 years ago than HTML/CSS/JS can do today is a disgrace. At this stage, i'd be grateful if someone would just port the android UI API to a web browser and integrate it properly.

The main issue is jumping from an app into a web link if the app doesn't host nicely (things like share your cookie state, likely a security concern) but that's a price you pay (and I'm willing to pay) since fast app switching came in.

Viewing Ars PMs from within the Gmail app in particular sucks, but that's only one way to do things.

performance is definitely an issue, but the point of the OP is that you should be able to custom craft an HTML5 site for iOS devices, and have that run under the mobile site sub header. Although, judging by the awful performance of that site on iOS devices, that simply might not be possible.

No-one says that you absolutely cannot do it, but no-one has provided a compelling reason to either.

The biggest compelling reason is that a media company could provide an enhanced experience within their mobile site without forcing the customer to download the app which is a hassle that many will not do. For instance, I occasionally visit ABC. I have no desire to install the ABC app. I do not use ABC enough to install the app. I would never open the ABC app on its own, but only if I had been linked there by someone else.

Most media company apps are different layouts, while most mobile sites appear to have the limitations of the document format of HTML in them. But I have seen HTML5 sites on the desktop at least which try to "appify" the experience.

, I occasionally visit ABC. I have no desire to install the ABC app. I do not use ABC enough to install the app. I would never open the ABC app on its own, but only if I had been linked there by someone else.

But in that case they shouldn't be trying to 'appify' anything.

There was a deep link into their content and they should strive to show you nothing but that content (and whatever advertising they feel is worth the risk/reward ratios they are operating under).

What possible 'app-like' mechanisms should take any screen real estate or break existing web UX idioms in those circumstances?

Yeah they should make sure they only ever ask you once "would you rather do this in an app" and ensure that, when you say no you are dropped to the correct point as if they never asked you but that's just good web UI in general.

[quote="ShuggyCoUk"]What possible 'app-like' mechanisms should take any screen real estate or break existing web UX idioms in those circumstances?/quote]

Have you ever used the nytimes iOS app? It is very impressive. I believe that it could be recreated in HTML5 if they so desired. So a deep link could take you to an article in an environment like the nytimes iOS app.

The biggest compelling reason is that a media company could provide an enhanced experience within their mobile site without forcing the customer to download the app which is a hassle that many will not do.

Prove that the burden of creating an HTML5 site that is comparable to the native app is less than the burden of the users turned away by being asked to use an app instead of using the mobile site. If you cannot do that, no-one gives a crap about your other arguments.

This is hurting my brain - is the complaint that applications tailored for a particular OS/device are nicer to use than web apps with the further assumption that somehow magically web apps can be indistinguishable from native apps?HTML5 may offer more than previous versions of HTML, but it's still a far cry from what native apps can offer.

The thread was started by someone talking about news/media sites and apps for those. There's very little benefit to apps for those sites. In fact, it's more of a negative than a positive. The news outlet could have rather easily written a single mobile site for all devices (crappy BlackBerry devices excluded) and users wouldn't have to have an app per website, which is a handy problem solved years ago by web browsers (and gopher before that).

It's a step backwards, other than enabling the marketing department to declare they have an app for your mobile platform.

The thread was started by someone talking about news/media sites and apps for those. There's very little benefit to apps for those sites. In fact, it's more of a negative than a positive. The news outlet could have rather easily written a single mobile site for all devices (crappy BlackBerry devices excluded) and users wouldn't have to have an app per website, which is a handy problem solved years ago by web browsers (and gopher before that).

It's a step backwards, other than enabling the marketing department to declare they have an app for your mobile platform.

I have a Blackberry (OS 6) and I use "iPhone" websites regularly. It's a Webkit browser and stuff works pretty well.

Otherwise, I agree. The web is for content; content sites are better suited for the web (even the mobile web) than for apps. The web is not for applications; complex applications are not suited for the web (even the desktop web).

This is hurting my brain - is the complaint that applications tailored for a particular OS/device are nicer to use than web apps with the further assumption that somehow magically web apps can be indistinguishable from native apps?HTML5 may offer more than previous versions of HTML, but it's still a far cry from what native apps can offer.

The thread was started by someone talking about news/media sites and apps for those. There's very little benefit to apps for those sites. In fact, it's more of a negative than a positive. The news outlet could have rather easily written a single mobile site for all devices (crappy BlackBerry devices excluded) and users wouldn't have to have an app per website, which is a handy problem solved years ago by web browsers (and gopher before that).

It's a step backwards, other than enabling the marketing department to declare they have an app for your mobile platform.

Right. I'm starting to see apps on iOS being mainly games, some productivity and creativity tools. It makes no sense for every local tv station to have a little app (yes, that is what is happening).

So I've been watching some Lynda videos on HTML5. what else is a good resource?

I don't doubt at all that libraries for native apps (for some platforms, at least) will start rendering to HTML5 before long.

For actual 'document' content - sure, why not?

For interactive application-y bits, good god why? CSS is massively retarded compared to proper layout components. JS is still slow as hell compared to just about anything and is also a massive PITA for large code bases.

Even the most 'impressive' canned demos of the web based GUI components are impressive only because they're web based, and since they're build of so many layers of inefficient hackery, they require a decent PC to make them usable, not to mention their sensitivity down practically to the build number of the particular browser in use.

HTML/CSS/JS are terrible techologies applied way way past their narrow area of competence.

After dealing with a web "app" this morning, I forgot the most important reason to use an actual application: The fucking Back button. There is nothing quite like clicking on your browser's back button (or hitting the keyboard shortcut by accident) and losing 10 minutes of work.

After dealing with a web "app" this morning, I forgot the most important reason to use an actual application: The fucking Back button. There is nothing quite like clicking on your browser's back button (or hitting the keyboard shortcut by accident) and losing 10 minutes of work.

Or having an Apple Magic Mouse and accidentally brushing it when you go to put your hand back on the mouse, activating the gesture for "back" and tossing everything you've just done. That bugger is way too sensitive! Sometimes I love that mouse; sometimes I want to smash it.